Requests for comment/Conduct and notability dispute on Turkish Wikipedia (user Lunarisframe)

The following request for comments is closed. Author does not have 250 global edits are required per point 3 of Requests for comment/Policy * Pppery * _{it has begun} 00:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

---

I am Lunarisframe, an editor on Turkish Wikipedia (trwiki) for about nine months. Outside Wikimedia, I also have professional experience in editing/writing. I am opening this RFC to request outside input on a local notability and process dispute on trwiki, with a particular focus on (a) how sources were assessed, and (b) whether the tone and framing used toward me align with the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and general Wikimedia conduct norms.

I am not asking Meta to overturn a local deletion decision. Rather, I would appreciate uninvolved perspectives on what would be a healthier, policy- and conduct-consistent way to handle similar cases in the future—especially regarding good-faith discussion, avoidance of motive-judging, and proportional use of deletion tools.

Background: article and sources

The dispute concerns an article I created on trwiki about a Turkish director, Erhun Altun. From the start, I tried to base the article on reliable, independent sources that (in my view) could support notability under the spirit of biography/film practices. Sources used and/or later added included:

• The *VEKAM Special Award* given within the 36th Ankara Film Festival (covered via the official VEKAM announcement and the festival catalogue/programme);
• An article/critique in the national newspaper BirGün discussing the film and the award;
• Documentation that the film Bir Tutkunun Hikayesi (A Story of Passion) was selected for the *Paladino d’Oro Sport Film Festival in Palermo* (official festival programme);
• A news article based on Anadolu Agency, published by Manşet Haber, stating that Bir Tutkunun Hikayesi won the *Best Documentary* award in the “National Documentary Film” category at the *13th International Silk Road Film Festival* (İpekyolu Film Festivali).

Over time, I continued improving the article as new festival/award sources became available. Despite that, the local assessment remained that there were “no substantial secondary sources,” and that certain awards were “to the film, not the person.” The outcome on trwiki was deletion, primarily on notability grounds: tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye aday sayfalar/Erhun Altun.

Conduct and process concerns

Independently of the final content outcome, I am concerned about the way some parts of the discussion shifted away from policy-based assessment of sources and content, and toward speculation about my motives and personal framing about my participation. From my perspective, this had a chilling and discouraging effect, especially when I was trying to engage in detailed, good-faith explanation of sources.

Examples (with links):

• On my user talk page, Wooze issued a conflict-of-interest (COI) warning. I experienced the warning as being based largely on indirect factors (e.g., that I returned to work on the same topic months later), rather than on concrete evidence of a financial/professional/close personal connection. See:

COI warning by Wooze and my reply: my response.

• In the deletion discussion on tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye aday sayfalar/Erhun Altun, comments by Wooze and Nedim gayet bir maintained the “non-notable” framing despite the sources above, and also raised COI concerns in a way that I experienced as primarily intuition-based. See for example:

Wooze’s nomination/comment and Nedim gayet bir’s comment. My replies explaining the sources can be seen here: first reply and follow-up reply.

• Kadı characterized me as someone who “only seems to be here for promotion” (“sadece reklam yapmaya gelmiş gözükyor”), which I experienced as an assumption of bad faith rather than engagement with sources. See:

Kadı’s comment and my response: my reply.

• Nanahuatl reinforced the COI/promotion narrative in several comments on the SAS page; for example:

early comment and later comment.

• Later, a user subpage I created—Kullanıcı:Lunarisframe/madde süreci—where I had compiled links, quotations, and my own reflections about the dispute, was speedily deleted under trwiki criterion HS#G10 (“attack page”). The text did not contain insults, profanity, threats, or harassment; it documented the process with my commentary. Nevertheless, it was treated as an “attack page” and deleted, and a short neutral note I posted at the Village Pump (Köy çeşmesi) linking to that subpage was also removed. (The page is now deleted; the deletion can be seen in trwiki deletion logs, and I can privately provide the original text to stewards or WMF staff if needed.)

• At various points, I was also told or strongly implied that my comments were “written by AI,” apparently because they were structured and carefully phrased. From my perspective, this shifted discussion away from substance and toward delegitimizing participation (“this is not really your work”), which felt dismissive.

Questions for comment

I would be grateful for input from uninvolved users familiar with UCoC and dispute-resolution / conduct practices on other Wikimedia projects:

1. In a case like this, where an article has multiple festival awards/selections and some independent press coverage, is it reasonable to assess notability without seriously engaging with those sources? More generally, how should trwiki approach notability for people and films when such sources are present?
2. Under UCoC and general Wikimedia norms, is it acceptable conduct for experienced users/admins to respond to detailed, good-faith messages by suggesting they were “written by AI” or that an editor is “only here for promotion”? At what point does this cross from normal criticism into personal attack, harassment, or a failure to assume good faith?
3. To what extent is it appropriate to base COI accusations primarily on “intuition” or on the fact that an editor returns to the same subject months later, without concrete evidence of a financial/professional/personal connection?
4. Does a user subpage documenting a contentious process (with links, quotations, and commentary but no insults or threats) fit the definition of a speedy “attack page” (HS#G10) on trwiki? Or would best practice be to ask the user to trim/adjust wording before resorting to speedy deletion?

My aim is not to have specific individuals punished. I am trying to understand whether what I experienced is considered acceptable within our movement, and what a healthier approach could look like for handling similar disputes in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Lunarisframe (talk · trwiki)

My main account: Lunarisframe

Discussion

These actions could harm trust among Turkish Wikipedians. I feel the consensus was compromised. You could inform U4C by filing a new U4C/Cases request. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy (tartışma),

Tarafsız bir editör olarak durumu sakin bir dille açıklamanız ve beni U4C yönergelerine yönlendirmeniz için içtenlikle teşekkür ederim. Türkçe Vikipedi’deki benzer silme tartışmalarına bakma öneriniz, süreci daha geniş bir çerçeveden görmeme yardımcı oldu.

Benim için asıl mesele, burada yaşananların içeriğinden çok kullanılan üslup. Özellikle @Vikiçizer (mesaj) kullanıcısının “diğer kullanıcıları ve Vikipedi’yi bu enerji ve mesai kaybından koruyacağız” ifadesi ile, @Kadı (mesaj) kullanıcısının “kullanıcı işbu konuyu Meta’ya götürmüş” diyerek konuyu neredeyse bir şikayet gibi aktarması ve daha önce yapay zeka vurgusuyla yazdığı yorumlar; hepsi birlikte oldukça eril, hiyerarşik ve küçümseyici bir dil hissi veriyor. Bu dil, kuralları öğrenmeye ve katkılarını geliştirmeye çalışan bir kullanıcıyı desteklemek yerine, “ne kadar katkı sağlamış ki” sorusuyla baştan değersizleştiriyormuş gibi hissettiriyor.

Konuyu buraya taşımamdaki amacım kimseyi yukarıya “şikayet etmek” değil; üslubun ve davranışların, Vikipedi’nin evrensel davranış kurallarıyla ne kadar uyumlu olduğunun dışarıdan da değerlendirilebilmesi. Yapıcı ve sakin yaklaşımınız bu açıdan benim için çok kıymetli; tekrar teşekkür ederim. Lunarisframe (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lunarisframe, as an uninvolved editor, I recommend you to take some time to review some deletion discussions about similar subjects on the Turkish Wikipedia (e.g, see dec, nov, oct, sep discussions). No process is perfect and mistakes can happen, but the decision about this particular subject is consistent with other recent deletion discussions. This subject does not have strong sourcing, so it was deleted. Personally, I lean more toward inclusionism, but that is beside the point: the encyclopedia needs to be consistent with its subject-inclusion criteria. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

TheJoyfulTentmaker,

Mesajınız ve özellikle sakin, tarafsız ve açıklayıcı üslubunuz için teşekkür ederim. Türkçe Vikipedi’deki benzer silme tartışmalarını ve konu dahil etme ölçütlerini süreç boyunca takip ediyordum; buna rağmen ilgili maddede sunduğum kaynakların ve tartışmanın konu dahil etme kriterlerini karşıladığını düşündüğümü de belirtmek isterim.

Benim açımdan asıl sorun, Türkçe Vikipedi’de bazı kullanıcılarda gördüğüm daha sert, yer yer eril ve hiyerarşik dil; “insanda yazma hevesi bırakmayan”, “ne kadar katkı yaptı ki” ya da “yapay zeka ile yazıyor” gibi ithamların, özellikle cevap veremeyeceğim veya cevap hakkımın kısıtlı olduğu alanlarda hala sürdürülmesi. Bu durum yeni katkı yapmak isteyen biri için oldukça yıldırıcı. Buna karşılık sizin burada yargılayıcı olmayan, saygılı ve yapıcı bir ton kullanmanız benim için önemliydi; bunu belirtmek ve bu yaklaşımınız için teşekkür etmek isterim. Lunarisframe (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yanlış yazmışım ‘kullanırsanız’ değil **kullanmanız benim için önemliydi. Lunarisframe (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)